4.07.2006
It's the Writing, Stupid
Okay, so I came across a really interesting blurb today in the L.A. Times about the Writers Guild choosing the 10 best written films ever.In order they are: Casablanca, The Godfather, Chinatown, Citizen Kane, All About Eve, Annie Hall, Sunset Boulevard, Network, Some Like it Hot, The Godfather II. Okay, so aside from the couple that I haven't really heard of I'm totally diasppointed in this list. I don't think the subject matter of many of these movies (the mob, male violence, a really silly identity swap, and woody allen just being himself) really merits much attention. But, even more annoying to me is the lack of current movies on the lists. People are always saying that the best of American cinema is over, and everything that's current is derivative. I totally disagree, and if I could make my own Top 10 list I would definitely include Sense and Sensibility, Adaptation, Gosford Park, and maybe even Rushmore (I know you guys are gasping in horror right now). American movies are as good now as they ever were, and dare I say it better? I also think there are a lot more women and cultures represented in American cinema, which is a great thing insofar as it reflects the society that we live in. Maybe I should just stop this rant and get my writers guild card already.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree...yet I'm torn. I still haven't shrugged off my allegiance to "classic" film. What is the place of old/er film in a "best of" list? I can certainly look at The Godfather and see how influential it's been to the writers and films that have come since, and I do value that influence, but at what point do we say, "thanks for the influence, Puzo, but now you're over. Dunzo."? I'm thinking of Blade Runner and how awesome everyone says it is/was, but when I finally got around to watching it, I thought, this is EVERY sci-fi movie at once. Ick!
As far as creating my best writing list...tricky...very tricky. Do we count adaptations? Because you mention Sense and Sensibility. And Adaptation, so yeah, I guess you do count adaptations. In which case, you have to add Clueless. A Few Good Men? I'm just a sucker for Sorkin. I hate committing to my favs when it comes to movies.
I hate to be so cynical about it, but I feel like there is so much about politics involved in any large Hollywood guild or group where they feel required to flex a certain degree of snobbery by only picking "classic" movies. There's nothing wrong with this, since it avoids any complaints of favoritism that choosing more recent works would elicit.
This kind of ties into my own project, although the "best" and "classic" movie's that I'm initiating myself to are favored more in a pop culture sense than a technical one (although that raises the question of where those two overlap and why...).
Well, let the blogging begin! (Or commenting at least)
I think the problem with putting any more current films on the top ten list is that really, do we know they are THAT good yet? The strength of the classics is that they have stood the test of time, and although I totally agree that the list is a completely one-sided white-male list, and that many current screenplays are better, (schindlers list, for one) are they really? I'd give it just a few more years. But only a few.
In response to the question "is the best of American cinema over?":
No.
And I will explain, since "no" isn't very helpful.
"Casablanca," "To Kill a Mockingbird" "The Secret War of Harry Frigg" are three of my favorite movies (Capra figures in as well). The first two are even two of the best movies I've ever seen ("Frigg" is a favorite... but it's not incredibly well done... just full of Paul Newman)
The fact that "Casablanca" and "Mockingbird" are some of the best, though, does not discount "Say Anything" "Walk the Line" "Finding Neverland" or countless other amazing movies made during my lifetime. "A Few Good Men" is just as good as "Twelve Angry Men". "Hotel Rwanda" is as good as "Exodus".
That I think "the Jazz Singer" is good does not make "Walk the Line" any worse, or any less important. Movies are a part of history: a living, changing thing. Though the movies themselves do not change, the way we see them and the world around them does. People change, but not so fundamentally that we cannot agree with something someone said fifty years ago. (If I'm not making any sense now, I probably won't be any time soon, apologies)
Paul Newman in "Exodus" was amazing forty or so years ago, and I still think he's amazing today. That he was amazing does not detract in any way from the great actors of today.
In conclusion, good movies are good movies, no matter when they're made, and I think people are still making them. Even more important than that, Paul Newman is fantastic, and he's still acting today. Enough said.
When we think about a film's "writing" as being good or great, or even historical; we have to consider where the writing is coming from. A film like "Sense and Sensibility" was first a novel, and this is true for many films that we don't even realize. Does the written text have a positive effect on the writing of the film? Well, there have been some adaptations that have done well and really worked on screen, I'm thinking more recently, the Harry Potter films which seem to remain true to the original text. Was Casablanca a book before it was a film? I honestly don't know, but if it was, do we think this has had a positive affect on the film in written form? --Patrice
Post a Comment